| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2007 11:37:52 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I, personally, couldn't live without the 10-22mm ultra-WA lens, but I'm a wide angle landscape freak so...
R. |
Have you considered the possibility that your freakiness is not limited to just that arena? ;-)
(j/k) |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 11:41:15 AM · #27 |
question
I'd like to get a nice micro lens and at the moment I can buy either the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or Canon 60mm f2.8 macro USM
which 1 is better (if any)? and why? |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 11:46:30 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Oded:
question
I'd like to get a nice micro lens and at the moment I can buy either the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or Canon 60mm f2.8 macro USM
which 1 is better (if any)? and why? |
The 105mm is going to have a longer working distance which would not require you to be as close to the subject as with the 60mm. The 60mm has a faster and quieter USM focus drive. I would bet that the optical quality is about the same. The 105mm can also be used on a full frame body where as the 60mm cannot. They both have their positives and negatives, what's most important to you?
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 12:09:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by Oded:
question
I'd like to get a nice micro lens and at the moment I can buy either the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or Canon 60mm f2.8 macro USM
which 1 is better (if any)? and why? |
The 105mm is going to have a longer working distance which would not require you to be as close to the subject as with the 60mm. The 60mm has a faster and quieter USM focus drive. I would bet that the optical quality is about the same. The 105mm can also be used on a full frame body where as the 60mm cannot. They both have their positives and negatives, what's most important to you? |
thanks a lot for the answer
I think I'll go for the sigma as it gives me the longer distance and as u say that optical they are more or less the same (thats mostly what I was wondering about) |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 12:24:28 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I seriously suggest passing the D40 up. It wasn't one of Nikon's better ideas. |
The 40x does meet your specs for 8 mpix or larger. One lens would fill both your needs..... if you can live with manual focus. Personally, all of my macro shots are manual focus. The camera simply can't tell where the microscopically thin DOF should go. Only I can decide that. So.... I'd suggest the 60mm macro lens. We have several portrait photographers here who use it.Librodo
is one. This would give you both macro and portrait if you're willing to forgo AF.
I think for maximum flexibility the Canon route would be best. And... you'd keep your AF ability. The 100mm macro might be a good dual purpose lens with
Canon DSLRs.
I think Nikons only failure in this idea was not taking human nature into account. I hear many Nikon users tell anyone who will listen not to touch the D40(x). I believe it's almost the cheapest route into the DSLR domain right now. And because of human nature the D40 is extremely cheap. I've played with one and it's extremely lightweight. The only lenses that AF with the D40(x) models also happen to be the best and most modern lenses. I know of at least four of these being used by small newspapers by reporters due to the low cost. So, with respect to marketing the D40(x) may be a failure, but it's a fine tool none the less. |
I agree, I love my D40 (I couldn't justify the expense of getting the few more pixels that the D40x offers). It's backwards compatible with all the old Nikon lenses (if you don't mind MF). It's light so it's great to hike with, and it takes great pictures. I haven't found anything to complain about. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 12:47:07 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Oded:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by Oded:
question
I'd like to get a nice micro lens and at the moment I can buy either the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or Canon 60mm f2.8 macro USM
which 1 is better (if any)? and why? |
The 105mm is going to have a longer working distance which would not require you to be as close to the subject as with the 60mm. The 60mm has a faster and quieter USM focus drive. I would bet that the optical quality is about the same. The 105mm can also be used on a full frame body where as the 60mm cannot. They both have their positives and negatives, what's most important to you? |
thanks a lot for the answer
I think I'll go for the sigma as it gives me the longer distance and as u say that optical they are more or less the same (thats mostly what I was wondering about) |
I sold my 105mm f2.8 sigma macro because while it was good at macro, its AF was so slow it made it difficult to use for people. The Canon, with USM, will not have that problem. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 01:00:12 PM · #32 |
I'm considering upgrading also..and YES!!! It's overwhelming. I like taking macros but my camera doesn't focus well at close range.
Some of the best macros (IMO)I have seen on DPC have been taken with Canon EOS 30D & 20D, Nikon D70s & D50. Wondering if anyone has opinions of ease of use with these particular camera models (keeping in mind I am pretty much a novice!).
Also...since my eyesight is not too keen...I like a larger size viewing screen. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 01:00:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Oded:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by Oded:
question
I'd like to get a nice micro lens and at the moment I can buy either the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or Canon 60mm f2.8 macro USM
which 1 is better (if any)? and why? |
The 105mm is going to have a longer working distance which would not require you to be as close to the subject as with the 60mm. The 60mm has a faster and quieter USM focus drive. I would bet that the optical quality is about the same. The 105mm can also be used on a full frame body where as the 60mm cannot. They both have their positives and negatives, what's most important to you? |
thanks a lot for the answer
I think I'll go for the sigma as it gives me the longer distance and as u say that optical they are more or less the same (thats mostly what I was wondering about) |
It's not that simple: the working distance is measured from the sensor plane to the subject. The 60mm is a MUCH shorter lens, physically, than the 105mm, so the distance from the front of the lens to the subject when shooting at 1:1 macro is not that much different. Meanwhile, the 60mm is a better all-around working focal length, the 60mm is much more compact and comfortable to carry around, and the USM motor on the 60mm far outperforms the Sigma's focusing motor. I'd strongly recommend the Canon 60mm over the Sigma 105mm.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 13:01:25.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 01:59:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not that simple: the working distance is measured from the sensor plane to the subject. The 60mm is a MUCH shorter lens, physically, than the 105mm, so the distance from the front of the lens to the subject when shooting at 1:1 macro is not that much different. Meanwhile, the 60mm is a better all-around working focal length, the 60mm is much more compact and comfortable to carry around, and the USM motor on the 60mm far outperforms the Sigma's focusing motor. I'd strongly recommend the Canon 60mm over the Sigma 105mm.
R. |
So then what's the advantage of the Canon 100mm macro over the 60mm macro, aside from the EF/EF-S mounts? Or the Canon 180mm L macro even? I'm just confused now as to why have the longer focal length if it doesn't do anything for 1:1.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:07:19 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I would have to tell you to go with the xt, just because of the d40x's lack of supporting a lot of nikon's lenses. So:
Canon Rebel Xt
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM
Canon 70-200mm f4 L or Sigma 70-200 f2.8(not sure on the quality here)
Ryand |
I've only seen a couple of people with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and all the samples I've seen from their shots indicate that the lens is really soft wide open. The Tamron might be a better bet in this regard.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:17:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not that simple: the working distance is measured from the sensor plane to the subject. The 60mm is a MUCH shorter lens, physically, than the 105mm, so the distance from the front of the lens to the subject when shooting at 1:1 macro is not that much different. Meanwhile, the 60mm is a better all-around working focal length, the 60mm is much more compact and comfortable to carry around, and the USM motor on the 60mm far outperforms the Sigma's focusing motor. I'd strongly recommend the Canon 60mm over the Sigma 105mm.
R. |
So then what's the advantage of the Canon 100mm macro over the 60mm macro, aside from the EF/EF-S mounts? Or the Canon 180mm L macro even? I'm just confused now as to why have the longer focal length if it doesn't do anything for 1:1. |
It does do something. At 1:1, the 60mm will have the shortest working distance, no doubt. But it's not a tremendous difference compared to the 100mm. The compactness and the fact that it is such a nice focal length on an APS-C camera are both big plusses, and unless one is mostly doing macros of skittish live subjects, the 60mm is a great choice, both for macro and portrait. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:32:26 PM · #37 |
Looks like you've got plenty of good advice, and I can't really speak for the higher-end lenses... But if you're on a budget the Canon 50mm f1.8 is the best $90 you can spend.
It doesn't do macro, but it's the fastest glass you can buy for the price. In other words, it's great in low light and does well with blurring the bkg in portraits. Not to mention that primes are known for their image quality.
So if money is an important factor, this is IMO the best bang for your buck. |
|
|
|
06/29/2007 05:42:16 PM · #38 |
I can't decide whether to get the XT or the XTi.
On the one hand, since I'm in school, the XT will probably serve me well for the next couple of years and then I would most likely upgrade either way after that, so maybe it might be worth it to save the extra couple of hundred of dollars to put towards better quality lenses that will serve me for a lot longer than the body.
On the other hand, the XTi is a better camera, and is what a lot of the other students have bought. I don't want to have inferior equiptment but also I don't want to fall into that stupid psyche of trying to keep up with them since that is kind of silly to spend $200 for.
What would you go with? |
|
|
|
06/29/2007 05:45:13 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by moniepenny:
I can't decide whether to get the XT or the XTi.
On the one hand, since I'm in school, the XT will probably serve me well for the next couple of years and then I would most likely upgrade either way after that, so maybe it might be worth it to save the extra couple of hundred of dollars to put towards better quality lenses that will serve me for a lot longer than the body.
On the other hand, the XTi is a better camera, and is what a lot of the other students have bought. I don't want to have inferior equiptment but also I don't want to fall into that stupid psyche of trying to keep up with them since that is kind of silly to spend $200 for.
What would you go with? |
The XT hands down. The XTi is NOT a "better" camera by any means. The only advantages are the 10mp (doesn't do a whole lot), pointless dust reduction system, and the 9 point AF sensor (the only worthwhile new feature). Save your $200 and put it into some nice lenses cause remember, put a crappy lens in front of even a 1Dmk3 and you still get a crappy image. The body does not matter nearly as much as the lens you get for it. Go with the XT, save money, buy good glass.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 04:02:44 PM EDT.
